Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (73038)	8/22/2003 11:32:26 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I just happened on a Tenn. case that ruled against a display of the Ten Commandments with this explanation: "The totality of background facts shows that the County Commission was motivated by the desire to promote a religious message; its June 1999 resolution was passed "in consideration of the great Biblical history of Tennessee" and in an attempt to "petition the God of Heaven to preserve the peace." There was no meaningful debate regarding the historical or patriotic significance of the other documents that ultimately comprised the challenged display. The Commission's proffered reason for erecting the display, to educate the citizens . . . about the foundations of American law and government and its moral character through the posting of eight historical documents, was a ruse to mask the Commission's actual intent--to promote the Ten Commandments and its religious purpose." So I guess all the surrounding facts will influence the outcome. The harmlessness of the 10 Comm. in and of itself won't be enough. An aside: I think I read that several options were offered the Judge- one of them being adding other things to make it more of an historic display- (as the friezes are in the USSC) and he is refusing to back down at all.